Orks Versus Marines

Well I had another game last night. It was a 2100point game with no Titans.

It was a marine v Ork battle (as you guessed from the title). I ust say that the marines were heavily outnumbered. I suppose that’s how its supposed to be, but it seemed excessive. Though I think that could be down to the fact that 4 termies and land raiders come to 825pts!!!

Anyway, It wasn’t a very interesting game, so wont go into great detail. The Orks advanced on the large ruined complex at the center of the table. The marines moved the Devs onto an objective and advanced towards the ruined complex from the other side.

The Orks shot at the devs with their garrisoned big gunz, not doing much damage. The kults of speed tore down a flank each. The ass unit of the marines advanced right up to the comlex with the bikes racing to meet the gunwagon KoS. A tac unit took another objective hidden in woods and dug in.

The large stompa and dread mob strode into the heart of the complex taking an objective and firing on the ass unit to no effect. The KoS shot up the bikes which broke and moved back to the objective in the marine deployment zone. The Land raiders and termies poured out retribution on the KoS, but the mekboyz field protected them from the worst. Though the warbosses own wagon was destroyed.

The ass marines charged the stompa mob, a stupid move I know, they took down two stompas before being wiped out by the attacks of Stompas and dreads.

The other KoS and Warband Advanced on the Dev unit and unleashed a huge amount of firepower. Most was uneffective, but it was enough to break them.

I ended the game here. It was turn two, and the marines already had two broken detatchments and one wiped out. The Tac unit and termies were unhurt, but I don’t think they could have turned it round. The Orks had the objective held by the big gunz, the objective held by the dreads and just took the objective ffrom the Devs.

I think I will play the game again, but not take termies and land raiders. In such a small game against Orks, I think they needed more numbers.

Chern and I have had much the same same experience when playing our Space Marines and Orks. Orks are a hard mark for the small numbers of Marines. The Marine shortage of heavy weapons also makes it hard for the SMs to take out Ork vehicles. I tried taking out all-vehicles / Dreadnought / Stompa mobs before which made all of the excellent SM AP capability useless.

The equalizer for Marines is airpower. A flight of bombers and T-Hawks in reserve make for a fearsome combination, especially since T-Hawks still don't count towards the 20% airpower limit in the E-A playtest rules yet, or at least they didn't last time I checked.

Our last game, Chern switched to IG and I think the IG is fearsome. The Deathstrikes are still unbalanced in my opinion since they translate as an unopposable free hit or hits on an enemy's most valuable targets. Until they get LoS (Line of Sight) limitations, I think they will be unbalanced since there is no way to protect against them. They also have unlimited range, which everywhere on the board is fair game. At any rate, the current deathstrike rules are REALLY "beardy!"

I think that, in the end, with current playtesting movements withstanding, the Orks are not going to be a very competitive force by the time of the final E-A ruleset. They keep on getting picked apart.

[[[ Maksim, I lurk on the Epic A boards and it seems your [[[ [[[ comments have been voiced there? Also I have seen a lot [[[ of other points being brought up, but no real resolution. ]]]

I'm a regular poster and I think that many of my comments are being read and that I am having at least a little influence in keeping the game from some undesired directions. Jervis has read and responded to at least a few of my comments.

Some of the other playtesters are incredibly sharp and I love their feedback. There are a few that seem like GW "parrots" toeing the party line. Most of the playtesters, however, seem to being giving excellent feedback and I hope Jervis uses it the best he can.

In a few cases, however, I haven't liked what's happened such as with the Stompas, which have had their stats decline bit by bit. They were unbalanced as individual units, but in light of much of the rest of their list being very limited, I found them balanced. I'm finding that the Orks seem to be getting more and more limited while the IG and SMs seem to being revised, for the most part, to be better and better. In the SMs case, they badly need that since they are very hard to win with. In the IG's case, I think they need to be toned down. Call it a hunch, but if the current rules hold, the first Epic GT should be won by an IG army.

[[[ What are your feelings on how they are handling the [[[ [[[ feedback? ]]]

It seems reasonable and fair. Jervis reads what he wants and comments when he has time. I don't have any illusion that the playtester's board is anything more than a tool to give Jervis a little direction. It certainly isn't a democracy (I wouldn't want it to be one either) and I'm glad that Jervis is making decisions, for better or worse. A "council" would be a bad thing for E-A. It works for NetEpic, but NetEpic exists under very different conditions.

Unfortunately, the "post-hogs" (playtesters who post so much that every post on the board gets a comment from them even if it's a cut and paste "repeat" from Jervis' comments) seem to get a very large proportion of Jervis' attention. I sometimes wonder if Jervis values the quantity or quality of a playtester's feedback.

This doesn't bother me overly, but I don't like to think that the game's direction might be steered by frenetic posters.

[[[ Do you feel that your input is being heard? ]]]

For the most part, yes. There's is a time post discrepancy on the boards that posts receive a time stamp from the local person's time zone, which means that US posters have their posts placed several posts behind (meaning not at the front of a line of posts) UK posters. In some cases, I think that this means my posts are glossed over (it wasn't at the front!) even though they are the latest in a line of ideas.

[[[ Is it your opinion that the game design is moving in the [[[ [[[ desired direction? ]]]

The game is currently pretty solid. I like it and it will work with a little support from GW and a hopefully available line of miniatures. Most of Jervis' choices have been good ones although I think that in the current incarnation of the playtest rules, the Imperials have some horrendous advantages that the only "enemy" race, the Orks, does not. Of course, the game has only four "Jervis-approved" forces currently (chaos, IG, SMs, and Orks). I can't comment on Chaos yet since I haven't playtested them or even played against them.

I'm not sure that the game will be great tournament wise, but as a game for two individuals playing who can add house rules, it's a great system. I don't plan to play against Deathstrikes unless they have LoS limitations or I'm in a tournament where I just have to bite the bullet (or better yet use them myself).

No matter what happens with the rules, what I am really waiting for is the new miniatures. I think they're going to be great. The few peeks we've had so far have been stupendous!

Primarch,

I personally feel that E-A can use your feedback as long as you don't become a NetEpic commissar. Your comments and feedback would be invaluable to Jervis. At the very least, noone will be able to say that your criticism is unwarranted if you have participated.

Thank you Maksim for your coments, a lot of interesting information to digest. I agree on posting hogs, there seem to be a couple of people that post way to much and without good effect and I think you are right about them getting an over proportion of attention. I also agree that it seems some armies are "too good". The relative weakness of the marines I think has been apparent from early on and IG are definately too good (the deathstrike are cheesy as they stand). Hopefully they will sort them out, balance between armies is of paramount importance in epic and to have "stronger" armies and "weaker" armies doesn't serve the game well.

As for me giving input directly, I decided (quite a long time ago) against it for several reasons:

1. Its difficult for me to comment on particular rules an such when I disagree with his basic philosophies on what he wants to do with the game design. I have read some posts on the Epic A forum where he points out his views regarding having some units in the actual "tournament" lists, but other (usually older models) are not. IMO this is pretty bogus, since I think most epic players dont give a hoot about tournament play and most play is between friends and local gaming groups. I beleive in ONE list, everything included, no distinctions. Its personal preference mind you, and I can understand Jervis' arguments, but I dont share them. Its hard to lay a brick when you dont like the foundation.

2. While I agree that a "net epic" style council is not right for all endevours, I do not like to give out opinions and be ignored. I want my opinion to be discussed,analyzed and then discarded with good arguments of pros and cons. I dont perceive that to be the case on that forum. Mind you it is MY personal prefence, Jervis can do whatever he wants, since its his game and design, but it makes for a poor investment of my time to give input and have no assurance that it will even be considered let alone answered. I fully understand that this bias comes from 6 years doing it the net epic way, but since we are talking about "my" reasons or contributing directly or not, it does affect the way I am willing to interact with a given project.

These are the main, very broad factors for not posting or inputing directly.

One of my gripes at the moment, is something I know Maksim feels strongly about too (since he posted on the thread I started 'where are all the mega armoured nobz')

The Orks seem to be suffering a bit fom generalisation. Now I dont have a problem with it in some respects. Big Gunz for example. The models have three different types, but all are treated the same. Fair enough. But putting Pulsa rokkets in the same bracket, a weapon that is noticably different, and comes in different packaging? Nope.

I want a little more uniqueness in the Ork weapons. It doesn't have to be major either. The simple addition of Explode would have sufficed for the Pulsa.

The Stompas and dreads, I cant back Maksim statements up on, since I've only played witht the Orks in V.10 (previously I was using the Eldar list I created). So dont know what they were originally. However, I dont think they are too bad at the moment. For 475pts I can get 5 Stompas and 8 Dreads. Which works out to, 5 AT4+5 AP/AT5+16 AP/AT6+26 MW4+ CC attacks.

Which is pretty good (I think). The only draw back, is their 15cm movement. So by the time they're in range to use all this, you're probably down 50%. Especially as they're a good target for things like deathstrikes.

I also dont see why there is a need to leave thigns out of the Ork list.

Alot of things seem to have been either generalized or left out alltogether. They seem to be shortening the list. I, personally, think the lists should be huge and overly complicated. Allowing for all types of models. Even ones that aren't in existence. Representing upgrades, jury rigging, stolen stuff and the like. I just seem to be repeating myself in regards to the doubts I am having about EA. I hope I am wrong.

The best way to deal with Devastator and vehicle formations of marines. Shoot each unit with two formations of Orks. If you hit, thats 4 blast markers. With the possibility of any casualties caused, they are usually unable to perform any damage back. I like the rule for two blast markers from Ork fire, I just wonder whether its too effective against small formations. Marines can just about cope, since they need two to effect units, but what about an Eldar list, which I imagine to have small formations, and normal results from blast markers.

[[[ Ironic as on the EpicA battlestats program the Orks are [[[ [[[ doing the best and the Imperial Guard are doing the [[[ [[[ [[[ worst... click here to see it.[[[ I always found the IG a nightmare to fight... just cannot [[[ kill enough of them! ]]]

I'm wondering about the validity of the data on the Battlestats program. The Marines shouldn't be doing that well. My theory is that the 16yo playtesters (who are immature as opposed to the mature ones) are having a great game of it.

We've (meaning Chern and I) have been reporting our games faithfully, but another problem is that Battlestats represents several different version of the platest rules and in the latest version, a considerable escalation has taken place.

Some great comments, guys. ?But I think what I said before, is true (?). ?Game play, tactics, army characteristics, all are based on the rule system you use, (say E40K vs. E-A), the relative experience and tactical "savvy" of the players, (the 16 year olds that Max mentioned vs. some of us "Alter Kampfers" like Max, Primarch, Jimbo, me , etc.) ?and how armies are organized. ?If you looked at the "Slim River" scenario, on this web site, you will see the E40K TO&Es vs. the E-A TO&Es are like night and day. So all these "states of nature", will affect the game, obviously. ? Reality Check: ?It appears, some ?of the old infantry types and vehicles won't be addressed, so be prepared to "merge" them with existing types or make your own rules. ?Tournament Rules, I'm with Primarch, who cares ?! ? ? ? ? ?When the E-A rule book ?is finally released - it is what it is ... get it ... no more ... no less. ?This is my 4th release of Epic since '90 (yes, I've said this before too ), so we use a "hybrid" rule system, but we like the combat results system of E-A and might use them. ?We are amazed how much of SM1 is in the E-A rules, very little SM2 (if any ?) and only blast markers and one or two other things from E40K. ?So for many of you this is a real paradigm shift. ?So go with it ... get it ... use the rules as is; modify it as you see fit; "GO HYBRID"- (heretic); ?play Netepic, etc., etc. ? I doubt you'll get a visit from the =][= ? !!! ?What I am excited about ( like a groupie at an Ozzy concert ), is the pending release of the new models (YAHOOO !!!) and the continuing release of the "Wild Card" Forge World's Epic contribution. (Some one tell them we don't need the 6th to 12th version of an IG vehicle !!!!!) ?Well that's my take on all this. ?It's only my opinion, I could be wrong... what do I know ??! ?...

_________________Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum